DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Trailside Degradation Across a Gradient of Trail Use in the Sonoran Desert

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of Trailside Degradation Across a Gradient of Trail Use in the Sonoran Desert Journal of Environmental Management 207 (2018) 292e302 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman Research article Comparison of trailside degradation across a gradient of trail use in the Sonoran Desert * Helen Ivy Rowe a, , Melanie Tluczek a, Jennifer Broatch b, Dan Gruber a, Steve Jones a, Debbie Langenfeld a, Peggy McNamara a, Leona Weinstein a a McDowell Sonoran Conservancy, Scottsdale, AZ, USA b School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, Arizona State University at the West Campus, Glendale, AZ, USA article info abstract Article history: As recreational visitation to the Sonoran Desert increases, the concern of scientists, managers and ad- Received 16 June 2017 vocates who manage its natural resources deepens. Although many studies have been conducted on Received in revised form trampling of undisturbed vegetation and the effects of trails on adjacent plant and soil communities, 13 October 2017 little such research has been conducted in the arid southwest. We sampled nine 450-m trail segments Accepted 10 November 2017 with different visitation levels in Scottsdale's McDowell Sonoran Preserve over three years to understand the effects of visitation on soil erosion, trailside soil crusts and plant communities. Soil crust was reduced by 27e34% near medium and high use trails (an estimated peak rate of 13e70 visitors per hour) Keywords: Trail impacts compared with control plots, but there was less than 1% reduction near low use trails (peak rate of two to Native plant species four visitors per hour). We did not detect soil erosion in the center 80% of the trampled area of any of the Nonnatives trails. The number of perennial plant species dropped by less than one plant species on average, but Soil crust perennial plant cover decreased by 7.5% in trailside plots compared with control plots 6 m off-trail. At the Recreation current levels of visitation, the primary management focus should be keeping people on the originally Sonoran Desert constructed trail tread surface to reduce impact to adjacent soil crusts. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction campsites, or b) testing resistance and resilience of undisturbed areas through controlled trampling in undisturbed areas (Monz An estimated 78.3 million adults visited trails in the United et al., 2013). States in 2008 and that number is predicted to increase 30% by On established trails, disturbance occurs initially at the time of 2030 (White et al., 2014). One early comprehensive review esti- trail construction as a result of opening canopies by vegetation mated that trails and campsites together disturb only 1% of the total removal, compaction of soil and alteration of drainage patterns by area of wilderness (Cole, 1987), but this was based on estimates of removal of upper soil horizons, and modification of micro topog- area rather than direct experiments on the effects of disturbance on raphy, affecting microclimate (Cole, 1987). Subsequently, ongoing ecological function (Adkinson and Jackson, 1996). The concern over trail visitation has direct (trampling) and indirect effects (com- visitor disturbance in natural areas has motivated extensive pacted soils, reduced organic matter and reduced soil nutrient research on trail impacts, as seen by multiple review papers over changes) on trailside vegetation (Monz et al., 2010). As demand for the years (Ballantyne and Pickering, 2015; Cole, 1987; Hammitt and recreational trails and trail use continues to grow, understanding Cole, 1998; Kuss et al., 1990; Leung and Marion, 2000; Monz et al., anthropogenic environmental impacts will become increasingly 2013), and more recently, in research studying the effects of trails important to inform sustainable resource management. on surrounding ecological communities (as reviewed by Monz The Sonoran Desert is a prime destination for outdoor recrea- et al., 2013). Trail impact studies generally focus either on: a) tion. For example, Scottsdale's 13,000 ha McDowell Sonoran Pre- examining the changes along established trails and around serve (MSP), which is the largest urban preserve in the United States, received 750,000 visits in 2016, yet it is only one of many natural areas surrounding the Phoenix metropolitan area. Since environmental factors such as climate and geology, and the inter- * Corresponding author. mediate elements of topography, soil, and vegetation type E-mail address: [email protected] (H.I. Rowe). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.028 0301-4797/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. H.I. Rowe et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 207 (2018) 292e302 293 significantly affect the degree and type of trail degradation (Leung nearest weather stations during the study years 2014e2016 (Flood and Marion, 1996), each ecological system responds differently to Control District of Maricopa County, 2017). Precipitation means trail visitation and associated impacts. In a recent review of 59 from the four nearest precipitation gauges indicated rainfall was original research papers on trail impacts, over 50% of the papers above average in the years preceding the first two sampling periods focused on just three habitat types: temperate forests, alpine and of the study (27.7 cm in 2013, 26.9 cm in 2014; Table 1), and slightly montane grasslands and shrublands, and Mediterranean forests, below average rainfall in the year preceding the final sampling woodlands and sclerophyll scrub, while only 2 papers (3%) focused season (22.6 cm in 2015; Table 1). The Sonoran Desert climate in- on deserts and xeric shrublands (Ballantyne and Pickering, 2015), cludes two distinct rainy seasons: one in the winter (Decem- and these latter papers were either focused on the impacts of roads bereMarch), and one in the summer (JuneeSeptember). (Brooks and Lair, 2005), or on the effects of vehicles or pedestrian The MSP is topographically and biologically diverse, ranging in use on untrampled dune systems (Rickard et al., 1994). elevation from 515 to 1237 m above sea level. A biological inventory Soil crust is a key biological indicator of disturbance in south- conducted between 2011 and 2013 found 368 plant species and 188 west arid environments (Allen, 2009; Belnap, 1998). In the south- vertebrate animal species (Jones and Hull, 2014; McDowell Sonoran west and similar environments, biological soil crust plays an Conservancy, 2014). There are 14 distinct plant associations important role in increasing soil stability, water infiltration, and soil distributed across the MSP (Jones and Hull, 2014). Bedrock geology fertility in otherwise erodible, dry, and infertile soils (Belnap, 1994; and soil types differ across the MSP, with predominantly meta- Belnap and Gardner, 1993; Harper and Marble, 1988; Johansen, morphic rock in the south and decomposed granite in the north 1993; Metting, 1991; Williams et al., 1995). Consequently, soil (Skotnicki, 2016). crust loss can result in soil erosion and loss of soil nutrients (Belnap Three blocks were identified which contained similar attributes and Gillette, 1997; Harper and Marble, 1988; Schimel et al., 1985). within each block but were distinct between blocks (Table 2). Soil crusts are likely susceptible to trail impacts because they are Within each block, 3 trail segments were selected to represent a brittle when dry and crush easily with trampling (Belnap and gradient of trail visitation levels and to minimize differences in Gardner, 1993). plant association, soils, geology, slope, and elevation within block In our informal review of over 75 related papers, none of the (Table 2). A fourth control transect that had no visitation was trail impact studies in arid regions studied effects across a gradient established within each block at least 100 m from the trails. of use levels. Studies in other regions which did measure impact as Plant communities differed by block (Table 2). The common a function of use levels produced a variety of results (Ballantyne associated perennial plant species at the Gateway block are brit- and Pickering, 2015). Most trampling studies reported a definite, tlebush (Encelia farinosa), barrel cactus (Ferocactus cylindraceus), often curvilinear or asymptotic, positive relationship between buckhorn cholla (Cylindropuntia acanthocarpa), catclaw acacia increased use intensity and increased physical and biological im- (Acacia greggii), chain fruit cholla (Cylindropuntia fulgida), creosote pacts (Andres-Abell an et al., 2006; Ballantyne and Pickering, 2015; bush (Larrea tridentata), and saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea). Boucher et al., 1991; Wimpey and Marion, 2010), but others found The Tom's Thumb block shares many of the common perennial no clear relationship with use levels (Nepal and Way, 2007) or that plant species with the Gateway block, but being higher elevation plant cover increased closer to trails, regardless of use intensity also contains Arizona desert ethorn (Lycium exsertum), Wright's (Bright, 1986; Hall and Kuss, 1989). Some studies found that other buckwheat (Eriogonum wrightii), fairy duster (Calliandra eriophylla), factorsdvisitor behavior, type of use (equestrian, bicycle, pedes- globe mallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua), goldeneye (Bahiopsis parishii), trian), floristic community, topography, and othersd appeared to and Mormon tea (Ephedra aspera). Creosote bush (Larrea tri- be more important than use levels in causing physical and biolog- dentata), and saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea) are present in ical impacts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Long-Term Changes in Biological Soil Crust Cover and Composition Eva Dettweiler-Robinson1*, Jeanne M Ponzetti2 and Jonathan D Bakker3
    Dettweiler-Robinson et al. Ecological Processes 2013, 2:5 http://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/5 RESEARCH Open Access Long-term changes in biological soil crust cover and composition Eva Dettweiler-Robinson1*, Jeanne M Ponzetti2 and Jonathan D Bakker3 Abstract Introduction: Communities change over time due to disturbances, variations in climate, and species invasions. Biological soil crust communities are important because they contribute to erosion control and nutrient cycling. Crust types may respond differently to changes in environmental conditions: single-celled organisms and bryophytes quickly recover after a disturbance, while lichens are slow growing and dominate favorable sites. Community change in crusts has seldom been assessed using repeated measures. For this study, we hypothesized that changes in crust composition were related to disturbance, topographic position, and invasive vegetation. Methods: We monitored permanent plots in the Columbia Basin in 1999 and 2010 and compared changes in crust composition, cover, richness, and turnover with predictor variables of herbivore exclosure, elevation, heat load index, time since fire, presence of an invasive grass, and change in cover of the invasive grass. Results: Bryophytes were cosmopolitan with high cover. Dominant lichens did not change dramatically. Indicator taxa differed by monitoring year. Bryophyte and total crust cover declined, and there was lower turnover outside of herbivore exclosures. Lichen cover did not change significantly. Plots that burned recently had high turnover. Increase in taxon richness was correlated with presence of an invasive grass in 1999. Change in cover of the invasive grass was positively related to proportional loss and negatively related to gain. Conclusions: Composition and turnover metrics differed significantly over 11 years, though cover was more stable between years.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Soil Crust Community Types Differ in Key Ecological Functions
    UC Riverside UC Riverside Previously Published Works Title Biological soil crust community types differ in key ecological functions Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2cs0f55w Authors Pietrasiak, Nicole David Lam Jeffrey R. Johansen et al. Publication Date 2013-10-01 DOI 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.05.011 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Soil Biology & Biochemistry 65 (2013) 168e171 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Soil Biology & Biochemistry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soilbio Short communication Biological soil crust community types differ in key ecological functions Nicole Pietrasiak a,*, John U. Regus b, Jeffrey R. Johansen c,e, David Lam a, Joel L. Sachs b, Louis S. Santiago d a University of California, Riverside, Soil and Water Sciences Program, Department of Environmental Sciences, 2258 Geology Building, Riverside, CA 92521, USA b University of California, Riverside, Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA c Biology Department, John Carroll University, 1 John Carroll Blvd., University Heights, OH 44118, USA d University of California, Riverside, Botany & Plant Sciences Department, 3113 Bachelor Hall, Riverside, CA 92521, USA e Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branisovska 31, 370 05 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic article info abstract Article history: Soil stability, nitrogen and carbon fixation were assessed for eight biological soil crust community types Received 22 February 2013 within a Mojave Desert wilderness site. Cyanolichen crust outperformed all other crusts in multi- Received in revised form functionality whereas incipient crust had the poorest performance. A finely divided classification of 17 May 2013 biological soil crust communities improves estimation of ecosystem function and strengthens the Accepted 18 May 2013 accuracy of landscape-scale assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • Split Rock Trail Most Diverse Vegetation Types in North America
    Species List Species List National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Color Species Habit Season Color Species Habit Season Section 2, ■ • Section 1 W Ambrosia dumosa (burrobush) S C Y Opuntia chlorotica (pancake cactus) C c Joshua Tree National Park W Brickellia atractyloides (pungent brickellia) S c Y Rhus aromatica (skunk bush) s C w Caulanthus cooperi (Cooper's caulanthus) A c Y Senegalia greggii (cat's claw acacia) s H % w Chaenacf/s srew'o('c/es (Esteve's pincushion) A c Y Senna armata (desert senna) s C, H w Cryptantha barbigera (bearded forget-me-not) A c Y Tetradymia stenolepis (Mojave cottonthorn) s H w Cryptantha nevadensis (Nevada forget-me-not) A c 0 Adenophyllum porophylloides (San Felipe dyssodia) SS C, H tv w Eriogonum davidsonii (Davidson's buckwheat) A c, H 0 Sphaeraicea ambigua (apricot mallow) p C V w Eriogonum fasciculatum (California buckwheat) S C, H p Allium parishii (Parish's onion) B C \ w Eriogonum wrightii (Wright's buckwheat) SS H p Cylindropuntia ramosissima (pencil cholla) c H t Section 4 w Euphorbia albomarginata (rattlesnake weed) A C, H I p Echinocereus engelmannii (hedgehog cactus) c C P- ♦ Section 31 w Galium stellatum (starry bedstraw) SS C p Krameria erecta (littieleaf ratany) s C W/P Giliastellata (stargiiia) A C P/W Mirabilis laevis (wishbone bush) p c w Lepidium lasiocarpum (white pepperweed) A c _PJ Opuntia basilaris (beavertai! cactus) c c N w Lycium andersonii (Anderson's boxthorn) S c p Stephanomeria exigua (small wirelettuce) A C,H A w Lydum cooperi (Cooper's boxthorn) s c p Stephanomeria parryi (Parry's wirelettuce) P c w Nolina parryi (Parry nolina) s c p IStephanomeria paudflora (brownplume wirelettuce) SS c 0 500 2000 Feet w Pectocarya recurvata (arched-nut comb-bur) A c Boechera xylopoda (bigfoot hybrid rockcress) P c 0 150 600 Meters w Pecfocarya serosa (round-nut comb-bur) A c Delphinium parishii (Parish's larkspur) P c See inside of guide for plants found in each section of this map.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Soil Crust Rehabilitation in Theory and Practice: an Underexploited Opportunity Matthew A
    REVIEW Biological Soil Crust Rehabilitation in Theory and Practice: An Underexploited Opportunity Matthew A. Bowker1,2 Abstract techniques; and (3) monitoring. Statistical predictive Biological soil crusts (BSCs) are ubiquitous lichen–bryo- modeling is a useful method for estimating the potential phyte microbial communities, which are critical structural BSC condition of a rehabilitation site. Various rehabilita- and functional components of many ecosystems. How- tion techniques attempt to correct, in decreasing order of ever, BSCs are rarely addressed in the restoration litera- difficulty, active soil erosion (e.g., stabilization techni- ture. The purposes of this review were to examine the ques), resource deficiencies (e.g., moisture and nutrient ecological roles BSCs play in succession models, the augmentation), or BSC propagule scarcity (e.g., inoc- backbone of restoration theory, and to discuss the prac- ulation). Success will probably be contingent on prior tical aspects of rehabilitating BSCs to disturbed eco- evaluation of site conditions and accurate identification systems. Most evidence indicates that BSCs facilitate of constraints to BSC reestablishment. Rehabilitation of succession to later seres, suggesting that assisted recovery BSCs is attainable and may be required in the recovery of of BSCs could speed up succession. Because BSCs are some ecosystems. The strong influence that BSCs exert ecosystem engineers in high abiotic stress systems, loss of on ecosystems is an underexploited opportunity for re- BSCs may be synonymous with crossing degradation storationists to return disturbed ecosystems to a desirable thresholds. However, assisted recovery of BSCs may trajectory. allow a transition from a degraded steady state to a more desired alternative steady state. In practice, BSC rehabili- Key words: aridlands, cryptobiotic soil crusts, cryptogams, tation has three major components: (1) establishment of degradation thresholds, state-and-transition models, goals; (2) selection and implementation of rehabilitation succession.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Regulation in Cyanobacterial Biocrusts from Drylands: Negative Impacts of Anthropogenic Disturbance
    water Article Water Regulation in Cyanobacterial Biocrusts from Drylands: Negative Impacts of Anthropogenic Disturbance Yolanda Cantón 1,2,*, Sonia Chamizo 1,2, Emilio Rodriguez-Caballero 1,2 , Roberto Lázaro 3, Beatriz Roncero-Ramos 1 , José Raúl Román 1 and Albert Solé-Benet 3 1 Department of Agronomy, University of Almeria, Carretera de Sacramento sn., La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain; [email protected] (S.C.); [email protected] (E.R.-C.); [email protected] (B.R.-R.); [email protected] (J.R.R.) 2 Research Centre for Scientific Collections from the University of Almería (CECOUAL), Carretera de Sacramento sn., La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain 3 Experimental Station of Arid Zones, CSIC, Carretera de Sacramento sn., La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain; [email protected] (R.L.); [email protected] (A.S.-B.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 26 December 2019; Accepted: 4 March 2020; Published: 6 March 2020 Abstract: Arid and semi-arid ecosystems are characterized by patchy vegetation and variable resource availability. The interplant spaces of these ecosystems are very often covered by cyanobacteria-dominated biocrusts, which are the primary colonizers of terrestrial ecosystems and key in facilitating the succession of other biocrust organisms and plants. Cyanobacterial biocrusts regulate the horizontal and vertical fluxes of water, carbon and nutrients into and from the soil and play crucial hydrological, geomorphological and ecological roles in these ecosystems. In this paper, we analyze the influence of cyanobacterial biocrusts on water balance components (infiltration-runoff, evaporation, soil moisture and non-rainfall water inputs (NRWIs)) in representative semiarid ecosystems in southeastern Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • 03-Aclp-2-Plant-Id-Shrubs.Pdf
    Plants and Trees of the Southwest Shrubs Used in the Landscape Learn about the shrubs you see around you everyday! Photos and text shared by Dr. Chris Martin Professor of Sustainable Horticulture Arizona State University 22 Acca sellowiana pineapple guava Formerly Feijoa sellowiana Afrocarpus gracilior 23 yew pine Formerly Podocarpus macrophyllus 24 Anisacanthus quadrifidus var. wrightii desert honeysuckle 25 Bahiopsis parishii goldeneye Formerly Viguiera deltoidea 26 Buddleja marrubiifolia butterfly bush 27 Cordia boissieri Texas olive 28 Cordia parvifolia little leaf cordia 29 Dalea frutescens black dalea 30 Dalea greggii trailing indigo bush 31 Dalea pulchra indigo bush 32 Ericameria laricifolia turpentine bush 33 Eremophila hygrophana blue bells 34 Euonymus japonicus evergreen euonymus 35 Euryops pectinatus yellow daisy, golden bush daisy 36 Gardenia jasminoides gardenia 37 Guaiacum coulteri guayacan 38 Hamelia patens firecracker bush 39 Ilex vomitoria dwarf yaupon holly Jasminum laurifolium var. laurifolium 40 angelwing jasmine Formerly Jasminum nitidum 41 Jasminum sambac Arabian jasmine 42 Juniperus spp. junpier Juniperus chinensis Chinese juniper Juniperus horizontalis creeping juniper Juniperus sabina arcadia juniper 43 Lagerstroemia indica crape myrtle Leucophyllum langmaniae 44 ‘Rio Bravo’ 45 Leucophyllum zygophyllum ‘Cimmaron’ 46 Melaleuca viminalis ‘Little John’ 47 Myrtus communis myrtle Myrtus communis ‘Boetica’ Myrtus communis ‘Compacta’ 48 Nandina domestica heavenly bamboo 49 Pittosporum tobira Japanese pittosporum 50 Plumbago
    [Show full text]
  • National Cooperative Soil Survey and Biological Soil Crusts
    Biological Soil Crusts Status Report 2003 National Cooperative Soil Survey Conference Plymouth, Massachusetts June 16 - 20, 2003 Table of Contents I. NCSS 2003 National Conference Proceedings II. Report and recommendations of the soil crust task force - 2002 West Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference Task Force Members Charges Part I. Executive Summary and Recommendations Part II. Report on Charges Part III. Research Needs, Action Items, Additional Charges Part IV. Resources for Additional Information Part V. Appendices Appendix 1 - Agency needs Appendix 2 - Draft material for incorporation into the Soil Survey Manual Introduction Relationship to Mineral Crusts Types of Biological Soil Crusts Figure 1. Biological soil crust types. Major Components of Soil Crusts: Cyanobacteria, Lichens, and Mosses Table 1. Morphological groups for biological crust components and their N-fixing characteristics. (Belnap et al. 2001) Soil Surface Roughness/Crust Age Distribution of Crusts References Appendix 3 - Guidelines for describing soil surface features, Version 2.0 Surface features Table 1. Surface features Determining Percent Cover Equipment Method 1. Step-point Method 2. Ocular estimate with quadrats Method 3. Line-point quadrat Method 4. Stratified line-point intercept Method 5. Ocular estimate Appendix 3a - Data sheets used in Moab field test Appendix 4 - Soil descriptions Discussion Group 1 Group 3 Group 2 Group 4 Appendix 5 - Photography Biological Soil Crust Status Report NCSS National Conference June 16-20, 2003 Table of Contents III. Task force's response to the following questions posed by the 2002 West Regional Standards Committee 1. Are biological soil crusts plants, soil or combination of both? 2. Is it appropriate to think of these crusts as plant communities with potentials, state and transition? 3.
    [Show full text]
  • A Field Guide to Biological Soil Crusts of Western U.S. Drylands Common Lichens and Bryophytes
    A Field Guide to Biological Soil Crusts of Western U.S. Drylands Common Lichens and Bryophytes Roger Rosentreter Matthew Bowker Jayne Belnap Photographs by Stephen Sharnoff Roger Rosentreter, Ph.D. Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Office 1387 S. Vinnell Way Boise, ID 83709 Matthew Bowker, Ph.D. Center for Environmental Science and Education Northern Arizona University Box 5694 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Jayne Belnap, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Canyonlands Research Station 2290 S. West Resource Blvd. Moab, UT 84532 Design and layout by Tina M. Kister, U.S. Geological Survey, Canyonlands Research Station, 2290 S. West Resource Blvd., Moab, UT 84532 All photos, unless otherwise indicated, copyright © 2007 Stephen Sharnoff, Ste- phen Sharnoff Photography, 2709 10th St., Unit E, Berkeley, CA 94710-2608, www.sharnoffphotos.com/. Rosentreter, R., M. Bowker, and J. Belnap. 2007. A Field Guide to Biological Soil Crusts of Western U.S. Drylands. U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver, Colorado. Cover photos: Biological soil crust in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, cour- tesy of the U.S. Geological Survey. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... 4 How to use this guide .................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 Crust composition ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United
    Richard V. Pouyat Deborah S. Page-Dumroese Toral Patel-Weynand Linda H. Geiser Editors Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States Under Changing Conditions A Comprehensive Science Synthesis Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States Under Changing Conditions Richard V. Pouyat • Deborah S. Page-Dumroese Toral Patel-Weynand • Linda H. Geiser Editors Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States Under Changing Conditions A Comprehensive Science Synthesis Editors Richard V. Pouyat Deborah S. Page-Dumroese Northern Research Station Rocky Mountain Research Station USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Newark, DE, USA Moscow, ID, USA Toral Patel-Weynand Linda H. Geiser Washington Office Washington Office USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Washington, DC, USA Washington, DC, USA ISBN 978-3-030-45215-5 ISBN 978-3-030-45216-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45216-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 . This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List
    Arizona Department of Water Resources Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List Official Regulatory List for the Phoenix Active Management Area Fourth Management Plan Arizona Department of Water Resources 1110 West Washington St. Ste. 310 Phoenix, AZ 85007 www.azwater.gov 602-771-8585 Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List Acknowledgements The Phoenix AMA list was prepared in 2004 by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) in cooperation with the Landscape Technical Advisory Committee of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, comprised of experts from the Desert Botanical Garden, the Arizona Department of Transporation and various municipal, nursery and landscape specialists. ADWR extends its gratitude to the following members of the Plant List Advisory Committee for their generous contribution of time and expertise: Rita Jo Anthony, Wild Seed Judy Mielke, Logan Simpson Design John Augustine, Desert Tree Farm Terry Mikel, U of A Cooperative Extension Robyn Baker, City of Scottsdale Jo Miller, City of Glendale Louisa Ballard, ASU Arboritum Ron Moody, Dixileta Gardens Mike Barry, City of Chandler Ed Mulrean, Arid Zone Trees Richard Bond, City of Tempe Kent Newland, City of Phoenix Donna Difrancesco, City of Mesa Steve Priebe, City of Phornix Joe Ewan, Arizona State University Janet Rademacher, Mountain States Nursery Judy Gausman, AZ Landscape Contractors Assn. Rick Templeton, City of Phoenix Glenn Fahringer, Earth Care Cathy Rymer, Town of Gilbert Cheryl Goar, Arizona Nurssery Assn. Jeff Sargent, City of Peoria Mary Irish, Garden writer Mark Schalliol, ADOT Matt Johnson, U of A Desert Legum Christy Ten Eyck, Ten Eyck Landscape Architects Jeff Lee, City of Mesa Gordon Wahl, ADWR Kirti Mathura, Desert Botanical Garden Karen Young, Town of Gilbert Cover Photo: Blooming Teddy bear cholla (Cylindropuntia bigelovii) at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monutment.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbial Biobanking – Cyanobacteria-Rich Topsoil Facilitates Mine Rehabilitation
    Biogeosciences, 16, 2189–2204, 2019 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-2189-2019 © Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Microbial biobanking – cyanobacteria-rich topsoil facilitates mine rehabilitation Wendy Williams1, Angela Chilton2, Mel Schneemilch1, Stephen Williams1, Brett Neilan3, and Colin Driscoll4 1School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton Campus 4343, Australia 2Australian Centre for Astrobiology and School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia 3School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia 4Hunter Eco, P.O. Box 1047, Toronto, NSW, 2283, Australia Correspondence: Wendy Williams ([email protected]) Received: 13 November 2017 – Discussion started: 20 November 2017 Revised: 10 January 2019 – Accepted: 23 January 2019 – Published: 28 May 2019 Abstract. Restoration of soils post-mining requires key so- tial for biocrust re-establishment. In general, the resilience lutions to complex issues through which the disturbance of of cyanobacteria to burial in topsoil stockpiles in both the topsoil incorporating soil microbial communities can result short and long term was significant; however, in an arid en- in a modification to ecosystem function. This research was in vironment recolonisation and community diversity could be collaboration with Iluka Resources at the Jacinth–Ambrosia impeded by drought. Biocrust re-establishment during mine (J–A) mineral sand mine located in a semi-arid chenopod rehabilitation relies on the role of cyanobacteria as a means shrubland in southern Australia. At J–A, assemblages of mi- of early soil stabilisation. At J–A mine operations do not croorganisms and microflora inhabit at least half of the soil threaten the survival of any of the organisms we studied.
    [Show full text]
  • First Annual Cnps-Sd
    July 2012 CHAPTER MEETING Fred has worked as Tuesday, July 17; 7 p.m. Assistant Herbarium Room 104, Casa del Prado Curator at U.C. Irvine Balboa Park and a botanist for the US Fish and Wildlife THE LIVEFOREVERS OF SAN DIEGO Service but is now a botanical consultant, COUNTY AND ADJACENT SOUTHERN author, and artist. CALIFORNIA AND BAJA He is best known for his work on Orange County CALIFORNIA, MEXICO plants and oaks but he has always had a passion for the genus Dudleya. Presentation by Fred Roberts Pre-meeting Natives for Novices at 6:30 p.m. "Planting and Maintaining Native Plants" by Sue Marchetti. The liveforevers, members of the genus Dudleya, are 7:00 p.m. – refreshments, book browsing, socializing. a popular and easily recognized group of succulent 7:30 p.m. – presentation. plants. They have been assigned to one of three groups depending on whether their flowers are united into a tube or open and star-like, and whether they originate from underground corms or form rosettes of either flattened or finger shaped leaves. About 45 species are found in southwestern North America, San Gabriel with about 25 percent of these found in San Diego Mountains County. If you expand that area to include mainland liveforever Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and northern Baja (Dudleya California south to Cabo Colonet, the region includes densiflora) well over half of all known species. Many liveforevers are narrow endemics often found in dramatic settings along cliffs, sea bluffs, and vanishing landscapes. If you have seen them in flower, you know they are a delight to find and observe.
    [Show full text]